You have to separate City's right to compensation vs Liverpool breaking of the PL rules and the PL refusing to follow up on it. Same with the Stanley Park conspiracy IMO. Not quite sure about the United FFP breach, since they have different rules/thresholds on allowable losses.
I think all of that shows how big a role the press plays in applying pressure on the organisers. The Stanely Park thing would have most certainly been met with outrage if that were City, just by the fact they attempted such an act of dishonesty. Even if being out of Europe does turn out to be a viable loophole, the press hate loopholes when it suits them, they switch to a conversation about morals and the spirit of the game.
They'd probably tell a story that: "City still broke the rules and gained advantages on clubs who were following them but somehow got rewarded with a free pass for failing to get their hands on a CL place. So what message does that send? It's okay to cheat if you fail your objectives? The rules aren't fit for purpose if that's the case, something must be done for the good of the sport"
I have a strong sense that nobody in the press wants Chelsea punished as harshly as City even if it turns out to be true and therefore every bit as serious. It's almost like they are giving it airtime because it will make them look bad/biased if they don't. Sort of like: "Have we covered this enough, can we move onto to the City part already?" .
If it can be shown that the PL have a pattern of letting their friends/masters off the hook, while they target specific clubs, that their friends want rid of. Would an independent regulator(government backed) be able to ignore it?
